Re: Regarding Scoring of Mailspike

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote: >> >> Your process makes sense and I'll look forward to reviewing the proposed >> rule scores as much as the process to determine your score recommendations. > > I suspect the auto-balanced scores wil

Re: Regarding Scoring of Mailspike

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > As for the gap, the behavior of what people think things do and what they > actually do on the infrastructure sometimes differs more than I like.  You > and I need to setup a box that replaces zones and zones2 that is more > modern. Total

Re: Regarding Scoring of Mailspike

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > >> My proposal that you replied to does not suggest delay of Mailspike >> inclusion.  I am only suggesting letting the scores balance naturally >> then adjusting it manually afterward.  I did something similar when we >> included PSBL in

Re: Regarding Scoring of Mailspike

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > On 12/12/2011 4:56 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote: >> >> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Warren Togami Jr. >>  wrote: >>> >>> * Was setting these scores manually your response to my concerns about &

Re: Regarding Scoring of Mailspike

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: >> * Did you really intend for Mailspike to add a total of 4.1 or 4.5 >> points?  (Given _BL is a composite rule that adds 1.0 on top of _L5 or >> _ZBI.) > > Yes, I did. Every time _L5 hits you have 4.1 points. Every time _ZBI hits you ha

Re: Regarding Scoring of Mailspike

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote: > * Was setting these scores manually your response to my concerns about > "reuse" and the difficulties we will face in GA rescoring?  I might > even agree with this solution, although I believe it can be refined > w

Re: Regarding Scoring of Mailspike

Kevin, Respectfully, I am concerned by this "consensus" as it seems to have been made without regard to the actual statistics. I might note the +1's were for inclusion, not for a particular manually set scores. While I have strong confidence in the goodness of Mailspike based upon its years of st

Regarding Scoring of Mailspike

https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6400#c27 Hey folks, any comments on this? Here I bring up some very serious issues regarding the automatic scoring methodology of Mailspike and why we shouldn't add more whitelists. Warren

Re: What happened to T_RCVD_IN_SEMBLACK?

http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/2019-r1203962-n It's missing from weekly masscheck. On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > On 11/16/2011 1:07 AM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote: > >> http://www.spamtips.org/2011/**05/dnsbl-safety-report-**5142011.html<htt

What happened to T_RCVD_IN_SEMBLACK?

http://www.spamtips.org/2011/05/dnsbl-safety-report-5142011.html I began to look into writing a new DNSBL safety report, but I noticed that recent ruleqa results are lacking T_RCVD_IN_SEMBLACK. Was it renamed or removed? Warren

Re: Coming Ubuntu Long Term Support release, and SA v3.4.x

On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 5:47 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > > On 10/27/2011 2:37 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: >> >> Ubuntu releases happen every 6 months, with Long Term Support (LTS) >> releases happening every 2 years.  The next release is an LTS release, >> 12.04 Precise Pangolin. >> >> I th

Re: Cut a 3.4.0 pre-release to encourage testing?

IIRC, our earlier pre-releases for 3.3.0 were prior to the rescoring. Cutting a pre-release now would at least encourage testing of the engine. On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > > I assume people are just too busy to cut a 3.4.0 pre-release and ask the >> public for tes

Cut a 3.4.0 pre-release to encourage testing?

Hey folks, I assume people are just too busy to cut a 3.4.0 pre-release and ask the public for testing? If this is the case, then I will do it probably this weekend. I'd like to call it rc1 to encourage public testing, but if folks here object then I'll call it beta1 or test1. Warren

Rescore Masscheck for 3.4.x?

Hey folks, Good to see that 3.4.0 is happening. Sorry I've been away for a while, grad school started and the workload is very heavy. Are we doing a rescore masscheck for 3.4.x? On a separate note, I have a volunteer at school willing to help us build a Mandarin language ham corpus a few months

Re: SEM rules pushed into production again

On 6/28/2011 6:03 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: 100% of the time I recommend reverting to a known good update using the very automated procedure as documented here: Remember though, revert to a known good update if at all possible. Patching updates manually usually leads to another bad update w

Re: SEM rules pushed into production again

On 6/27/2011 1:01 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: How often does auto-push happen? According to http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/SaUpdateBackend, it occurs nightly at 0830 UTC approximately 9.5 hours from now. Checking the actual file appears to concur. Looking at updatesd's crontab shows ther

Re: SEM rules pushed into production again

On 6/27/2011 12:37 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: I can accept everything else you wrote, but we should push a new rule update ASAP to eliminate the SEM DNS queries and also remove SOUGHT. Whether this is called "emergency" or not it doesn't matter. I do not show SOUGHT in Channel 1139459. Ah,

Re: SEM rules pushed into production again

On 6/27/2011 12:21 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: BTW, r1104058 rules were generated prior to June 11th when jm completely removed JM_SOUGHT_FRAUD* and __SEEK_FRAUD* in order to eliminate the sa-update channel ordering issue. As we are pushing an emergency rule update anyway, we should take this opp

Re: SEM rules pushed into production again

On 6/27/2011 11:52 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: It's back as a T_rule because someone removed(?) the nopublish flag. SEM was supposed to be a net nopublish rule. So the publication as T_RULE is not a bug in the code but "correct" behavior because the sandbox is missing the nopublish flag because

Re: SEM rules pushed into production again

On 6/27/2011 11:22 AM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: Who has the access to do an emergency sa-update? Is it only Daryl? AFAIK only Daryl knows how to do it. The last time I tried to follow documented procedure I seriously screwed something up. Warren

Re: SEM rules pushed into production again

On 6/27/2011 11:15 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: Yes, it is incorrect behavior because while it isn't adding anything of significance to the score it is still querying my public servers. I don't think asking people to put another set of rules in to disable rules that never should have been pushed

Re: SEM rules pushed into production again

On 6/27/2011 10:39 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: In short, this sounds like things are working and unless Blaine is seeing a rule being published that isn't T_*, we don't have an issue. Things are not working properly, and unfortunately we need to do an emergency sa-update push. score T_RCVD_

Re: SEM rules pushed into production again

On 6/27/2011 11:00 AM, Blaine Fleming wrote: On 6/27/2011 2:39 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: Sorry for posting to both dev and users but it looks like the SEM lists have been pushed into production rules again and are showing up in 72_active.cf under 3.3.1. This happened around 23:00 (GMT-4) la

Spamassassin 3.3.2 RPM Packages for Fedora and RHEL

http://www.spamtips.org/p/rpm-packages.html These packages for EL5 and EL6 are identical to the Fedora versions, and I personally use them in production. Warren Togami war...@togami.com

ANNOUNCE: Apache SpamAssassin 3.3.2 available

Release Notes -- Apache SpamAssassin -- Version 3.3.2 Introduction This is a minor release, primarily to support perl-5.12 and later. Additionally several other minor bugs are fixed. Downloading and availability Downloads are available from: http://s

DRAFT: Apache SpamAssassin 3.3.2 available

Please review the text of this DRAFT 3.3.2 release announcement. Verify that the checksums match the files on the mirrors. Should more of the less important changes since 3.3.1 be removed? Warren Togami war...@togami.com === DRAFT BELOW === Release Notes -- Apache SpamAssassin -- Version

Re: Confusion in website update

The instructions are confusing and do not appear to reflect reality. I do not want to risk breaking anything by digging deeper when I have insufficient time to fix it if anything goes wrong. - update the 'doc' tree in the SpamAssassin website (WARNING: if you're moving to a new major releas

Re: Confusion in website update

compile my own perl on minotaur and maintain it. Easier that way but I remember getting webmake to work was fun :-) It stinks having to spend an hour(s) doing things you can fix in minutes with root. But the ASF has helped in many many other ways. Regards, KAM "Warren Togami Jr." wrote:

Re: Confusion in website update

On 6/17/2011 1:15 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote: On 06/17/2011 04:13 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: I've run most of this before and gotten webmake to work in my own perl instance if you need help. It runs on minotaur/people. # build/update_website_docs ... REQUIRED module missing: NetAdd

Re: Confusion in website update

On 06/17/2011 04:13 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: I've run most of this before and gotten webmake to work in my own perl instance if you need help. It runs on minotaur/people. # build/update_website_docs ... REQUIRED module missing: NetAddr::IP optional module missing: Mail::SPF optional module m

Confusion in website update

- update the 'doc' tree in the SpamAssassin website (WARNING: if you're moving to a new major release, x.y.0, you need to edit 'build/update_website_docs' beforehand and set the "vers" line): cd /var/www/buildbot.spamassassin.org/staging/website svn up svn delete --for

Re: 3.3.2 Call for Votes

On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote: > > Whatever committers wanted to have update the website.  Just make sure you > setup your environment as noted in the build/README or on the wiki so that > you can run webmake and so that you don't lock the rest of us out of editing >

Re: Sought rules

via the regular channel. This includes a recent snapshot of the Sought rules, so On 06/10, Warren Togami Jr. wrote: Alternatively, I think it is a mistake for us to ship SOUGHT rules at all in the standard sa-update channel. That is, unless we plan on updating the patterns and scores of SOUGHT on

Remove Sought Rules from sa-update channel

On 6/10/2011 9:38 PM, Yet Another Ninja wrote: On 2011-06-11 3:38, Warren Togami Jr. wrote: On 6/10/2011 3:34 PM, John Hardin wrote: On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote: On 10/06/2011 10:24 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote: On 6/10/2011 2:01 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > > I

bb-* masschecks have stopped

http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/ I just noticed that the bb-* masschecks running on the uploaded corpora has stopped sometime recently. This runs on zones2 I think. Unless somebody else fixes it first, I might have time to look at it this weekend. Warren

Re: 3.3.2 Call for Votes

On 6/7/2011 6:19 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: +1 here though I have NOT tested with the tars built below yet as they should be identical to 3.3.2-rc2. There are a lot of great fixes and the perl 5.12.X+ compatibility work in this release. OK. We have 3 votes. Do we have a written process to up

Re: Brasilian rules

On 6/7/2011 5:44 AM, Jose Borges Ferreira wrote: As soon as I can clear all private info, I can send some ( both pt_PT and pt_BR ) for sampling. Any specific kind of spam ? We also need a wide variety of ham. Both personal and legitimate commercial ham. Warren

Re: Brasilian rules

On 6/7/2011 1:07 AM, Yet Another Ninja wrote: Guys It seems that atm there's an increase in brasilian/portuguese language spam. I'm looking into creating a dedicated portuguese language SA rule set. If you can contribute with hand picked samples, please contact me off list. Thanks I can put

Re: 3.3.2 Call for Votes

On 6/6/2011 5:27 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote: On 06/06/2011 9:28 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote: We need +3 votes from PMC (or the release manager) to declare 3.3.2 an official ASF release. This 3.3.2 release has no changes since 3.3.2-rc2. Please do some testing before voting. I believ

3.3.2 Call for Votes

/ Warren Togami war...@togami.com

Re: 3.3.2-rc2 Call for Testing

On 6/5/2011 4:45 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote: On Friday I received word from a long-time Fedora developer that 3.3.2-rc2 spamd on EL5.6 apparently stopped with no apparent error messages in logs. I have asked for clarification (if it is reproducible, if parent and child both died) but haven&#

Re: 3.3.2-rc2 Call for Testing

On Friday I received word from a long-time Fedora developer that 3.3.2-rc2 spamd on EL5.6 apparently stopped with no apparent error messages in logs. I have asked for clarification (if it is reproducible, if parent and child both died) but haven't heard back yet. I personally saw one odd inst

Re: 3.3.2-rc2 Call for Testing

On 5/30/2011 1:36 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote: 3.3.2-rc2 is meant to be the true release candidate for 3.3.2. If we find no problems with rc2, then I will recut it as 3.3.2 final with no code changes, after which a final vote will be taken for official release. ASF does not technically require

3.3.2-rc2 Call for Testing

://people.apache.org/~wtogami/rpm/3.3.2-rc2/ RPM packages for EL5 and EL6 Warren Togami war...@togami.com

Last Call for 3.3.2

clare 3.3.2 aborted, and 3.3.3-rcX will be the following cuts until we are sure we can do a true release. Warren Togami war...@togami.com

Re: No more 3.2 rule releases? Re: [Bug 6552] [review for 3.2] RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP ruleset incorrectly black flagging IP range!!!

On 5/24/2011 11:23 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: 3.2.x never had auto-rule updates. The 3.3.x updates from trunk was very recent with the release of 3.3.x. Good point. I'd forgotten we added that for 3.3. It' I consider 3.2 unmaintained and people should be running 3.3.X. I consider a valid cross

Re: No more 3.2 rule releases? Re: [Bug 6552] [review for 3.2] RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP ruleset incorrectly black flagging IP range!!!

On 5/24/2011 11:15 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: I continue to be against considering it fixed in Bugzilla because it is upsetting to users if it isn't pushed live. How about a compromise? Add a new semi-closed state to Bugzilla like PENDING_RELEASE to denote that it is 'fixed' but it isn't push

Re: No more 3.2 rule releases? Re: [Bug 6552] [review for 3.2] RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP ruleset incorrectly black flagging IP range!!!

be closed as WONTFIX to denote reality. Warren Togami war...@togami.com

Re: SA 3.3.2 Release Candidate 1 call for testing & comments

On 5/18/2011 4:38 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote: Pick a mirror from the MIRRORED.BY file and download the three files associated with the update revision number noted. wget http://daryl.dostech.ca/sa-update/asf/1104058.tar.gz wget http://daryl.dostech.ca/sa-update/asf/1104058.tar.gz.asc wget htt

Re: SA 3.3.2 Release Candidate 1 call for testing & comments

On 5/18/2011 3:58 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote: I'm hoping you're already testing with the update you requested that you get to test with before publishing the update in DNS. Update 1104058 that is available on the sa-update mirrors (just download the three files with wget or something) can be u

Re: SA 3.3.2 Release Candidate 1 call for testing & comments

On 5/18/2011 2:27 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: How about we wait until we have the update system working again and we're happy with a newly generated rules tarball. At that point we cut 3.3.2-rc2 for more testing. The code works with existing rules and sa-update is designed to separate the

Re: SA 3.3.2 Release Candidate 1 call for testing & comments

t we can have a final rc which is really meant to be a release candidate. If we vote to release that, then it gets recut as the actual 3.3.2 with zero code changes. This completely eliminates our confusing past practice of reusing numbers like last year's "Oops, this is the real 3.3.1,

Re: Ubuntu daily builds failed today Re: Updating debian build directory?

On 5/17/2011 12:30 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: May I please update the debian directory in trunk, instead of it just being deleted. Hasn't Darxus done more than enough to prove his worth as an upstream committer? Sure he hasn't worked in the "traditional" manner as a rule writer, but

Re: Updating debian build directory?

On 5/17/2011 3:09 AM, John Hardin wrote: On Mon, 16 May 2011, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: On 05/16, Mark Martinec wrote: IMO the distribution-specific packaging stuff has no right to be kept in a generic Unix/Linux/Windows package like SpamAssassin and should be wiped out entirely. The packa

Re: SA 3.3.2 Release Candidate 1 call for testing & comments

On 5/16/2011 4:26 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote: On 16/05/2011 5:59 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: However, I am using sa-update's rules version 1083704. What are your thoughts on including 1083704.tar.gz as the rules tarball for 3.3.2 since sa-update is our focus and a rule tarball is just kind of

Re: Votes: spamassassin-3.3.2-rc1

PMC? Committers? No testing and votes? Warren

Re: Updating debian build directory?

On 5/16/2011 8:21 AM, Mark Martinec wrote: IMO the distribution-specific packaging stuff has no right to be kept in a generic Unix/Linux/Windows package like SpamAssassin and should be wiped out entirely. The package maintainers know their job and their distribution most intimately and should hav

Re: Votes: spamassassin-3.3.2-rc1

linux-based systems for me. Are the rules ready for testing on a production system in your opinion? Regards, KAM On 5/14/2011 6:26 AM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote: http://people.apache.org/~wtogami/devel/3.3.2-rc1/ sha1sum of archive files: 191fc4548c7619e11127ef04714be19741122ea9 Mail-SpamAss

Votes: spamassassin-3.3.2-rc1

generated from the 3.3 branch, which is is now "wrong" right? How are we supposed to generate the latest stable rules tarball from the trunk rules? Just grab the tarball from sa-updates? Warren Togami war...@togami.com

Re: More Problems in 3.3.2-rc1

On 05/13/2011 01:56 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote: - Temporary kludge check until bug 6297 is fixed properly: grep nopublish rules/72_active.cf This should return nothing. If not, edit the rulesrc files and add "tflags nopublish" lines as necessary. Any thoughts? [warren@CHLOE sp

More Problems in 3.3.2-rc1

- Temporary kludge check until bug 6297 is fixed properly: grep nopublish rules/72_active.cf This should return nothing. If not, edit the rulesrc files and add "tflags nopublish" lines as necessary. Any thoughts? [warren@CHLOE spamassassin-3.3]$ grep nopublish rules/72_active.cf tfla

Re: Two bugs left just needing 1 vote for 3.3.2 Re: Proposal: 3.3.2-rc1

t/make_install.t .. 1/25 # Failed test 2 in t/make_install.t at line 52 t/make_install.t .. 22/25 # Failed test 24 in t/make_install.t at line 99 t/make_install.t .. Failed 2/25 subtests Test Summary Report --- t/make_install.t

Re: Two bugs left just needing 1 vote for 3.3.2 Re: Proposal: 3.3.2-rc1

On 5/12/2011 4:25 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: On 05/12, Michael Parker wrote: # Used during the prerelease/release-candidate part of the official release # process. If you hacked up your SA, you should add a version_tag to your .cf # files; this variable should not be modified. @EXTRA_VERS

Re: Two bugs left just needing 1 vote for 3.3.2 Re: Proposal: 3.3.2-rc1

ified. @EXTRA_VERSION = qw(); I'm supposed to put version_tag into a .cf file for the 3.3.2-rc1 cut, or modify this variable here that should not be modified? Warren Togami war...@togami.com

Re: Two bugs left just needing 1 vote for 3.3.2 Re: Proposal: 3.3.2-rc1

On 5/12/2011 11:49 AM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote: On 5/12/2011 3:37 AM, Mark Martinec wrote: > Everyone ready for a 3.3.2-rc1 cut late Thursday? Working on a Bug 6515, will have it ready soon. Other than that, it's fine with me. If we strike some solution for Bug 6526 (Disable rfc-igno

Re: Two bugs left just needing 1 vote for 3.3.2 Re: Proposal: 3.3.2-rc1

On 5/12/2011 3:37 AM, Mark Martinec wrote: > Everyone ready for a 3.3.2-rc1 cut late Thursday? Working on a Bug 6515, will have it ready soon. Other than that, it's fine with me. If we strike some solution for Bug 6526 (Disable rfc-ignorant.org) by then, even better. Mark 6526 is not c

Re: Two bugs left just needing 1 vote for 3.3.2 Re: Proposal: 3.3.2-rc1

On 5/11/2011 3:49 AM, Yet Another Ninja wrote: On 2011-05-11 15:48, Mark Martinec wrote: Warren writes: Password is reset. How about we cut whatever is in svn on Thursday? I have an important thing happening Wednesday, currently busy prepping for. Fine with me. The Bug 6236 is bugging me, bu

Re: Two bugs left just needing 1 vote for 3.3.2 Re: Proposal: 3.3.2-rc1

On 5/10/2011 6:30 AM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: I am pleasantly surprised that three got closed yesterday. I was wrong. That day, at least, was worth waiting. But I still think it's worth releasing 3.3.2 as soon as Warren can get his password reset. Password is reset. How about we cut

Re: Proposal: 3.3.2-rc1

On 5/8/2011 1:58 AM, Henrik Krohns wrote: On Sat, May 07, 2011 at 10:11:05PM -1000, Warren Togami Jr. wrote: OK, I tried to go into the server in order to cut and sign a tarball, but I lost my password again. I asked JM to reset my password. I seem to still have the passphrase for the signing

Proposal: 3.3.2-rc1

OK, I tried to go into the server in order to cut and sign a tarball, but I lost my password again. I asked JM to reset my password. I seem to still have the passphrase for the signing key though, so as soon as I get back in I will be able to do it. While we wait, how do people feel about ca

Re: rfc dsn for mail from bugzilla

On 5/4/2011 3:25 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote: X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2000.0 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,DNS_FROM_RFC_DSN seems listed bugzilla on rfc-ignorant :-( There is some irony in that domain name. Warren

Re: Proposed: 3.3.2-beta1 on May 4th Re: New release Re: [Bug 6577] IPv6 encapsulated IPv4 sender not detected correctly

On 5/4/2011 1:46 AM, Mark Martinec wrote: Proposed: 3.3.2-beta1 on May 4th Please give us a day or two more to sort out some pending bugs, I came late for the show :) Mark OK fine, too many appointments today anyway. =) Warren

Re: Proposed: 3.3.2-beta1 on May 4th Re: New release Re: [Bug 6577] IPv6 encapsulated IPv4 sender not detected correctly

On 4/30/2011 4:07 PM, Todd Rinaldo wrote: I know it's not the current procedure, but the CPAN way would be to release a dev version with _01 at the end of the version. This makes it readily available to everyone and allows the CPAN testers infrastructure to report on the test suite across multip

Re: Proposed: 3.3.2-beta1 on May 4th Re: New release Re: [Bug 6577] IPv6 encapsulated IPv4 sender not detected correctly

On 4/29/2011 3:28 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: I know the password for the signing keys. I've just been crazy busy. I will have some time May 4th. By the written policies, it appears that any committer is authorized to unilaterally release an unofficial beta. I therefore propose that folks sho

Proposed: 3.3.2-beta1 on May 4th Re: New release Re: [Bug 6577] IPv6 encapsulated IPv4 sender not detected correctly

Sometime shortly thereafter we can kick off the real release process. Warren Togami war...@togami.com

Re: Missing mass-check submissions for 2011-04-16

On 4/21/2011 4:58 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: Missing ham-net-bb-trec_enron - last seen 20110115. Warren removed because it was old. Missing ham-net-bb-kmcgrail - last seen 20110115. On vacation. Missing ham-net-bb-fredt - last seen 20110115. Email bounced, I should try his web fo

Re: Missing mass-check submissions for 2011-04-16

On 4/21/2011 9:58 AM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: On 04/18, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: 20110416 Missing ham-net-wt-hamtrap-en - last seen 20110129. Missing ham-net-wt-jp2 - last seen 20101204. Missing ham-net-wt-en5 - last seen 20101204. Missing ham-net-wt-en4 - last seen 20101204. Mi

Re: JOBS=x in auto_mass_check.sh

On 4/20/2011 11:31 PM, Jari Fredriksson wrote: It is set as 4 for nightly and 8 for weekly masscheck. I have 2 cores available in my virtual server. What if I change those to JOBS=2? Does something break? I see no point in running more than 2 simultaneous processes both with 100% CPU usage.

Re: Req: Dan, corpus check plz

On 4/20/2011 8:52 AM, John Hardin wrote: Dan, can you verify this message is properly classified? /home/dmcdonald/Mail/ham-nov2010.305386 Thx. This is why I asked for the creation of a masscheck participant mailing list. And participants should be required to subscribe there. It is too

Re: Applying patches from Debian?

On 4/13/2011 8:16 AM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: The Debian and Ubuntu packages of SpamAssassin apply 7 patches. Should these be applied to upstream? Applied in order: 10_change_config_paths - Changes all instances of /etc/mail/spamassassin to /etc/spamassassin. That is distro specific.

Mailspike Performance

these measurements, it probably isn't helpful to use HOSTKARMA_BL. Warren Togami war...@togami.com

Re: ruleqa is broken

On 4/10/2011 2:56 PM, John Hardin wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011, John Hardin wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: On 04/10, John Hardin wrote: > I found an old email listing the stuff on spamassassin2, freqsd > seems to be restarted. We'll see. Should that go up on the wiki

Re: How do you maintain your mass-check target folders?

On 4/7/2011 11:17 AM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: On 04/07, Warren Togami Jr. wrote: All of my incoming mail is CC'ed to a separate account, and all sorting is done within that account. The masscheck ham folder is entirely separate from my Inbox. So if you get a spam that SA misses

Re: How do you maintain your mass-check target folders?

On 4/7/2011 10:31 AM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: Do you actually move all your hams from your inbox to a separate "confirmed ham" folder? All of my incoming mail is CC'ed to a separate account, and all sorting is done within that account. The masscheck ham folder is entirely separate from

Re: Wombat plugin - dumb or intentional?

On 4/1/2011 10:48 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: On 04/01, Warren Togami Jr. wrote: My only comment on this is rather with the "Maintained" date. Maintained means little if the plugin hasn't been updated for years but continues to work with modern spamassassin versi

Re: Wombat plugin - dumb or intentional?

On 4/1/2011 11:41 AM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: I'm not all that curious about the fact that they put their plugin at the top, out of chronological order, again. What I'm curious about is the change of the "Added" date, to 8 months earlier. Is it a coincidence that after I put them back in

Re: ruleqa is broken

On 03/26/2011 06:09 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: No updates since 2011-03-21. I took a quick look on the spamassassin2 server. /exports/home/ruleqadb/ indeed shows March 21st as the last day logs were copied. freqsd is dead. I am unable to dig deeper because I can't find my password

Proposal: Temporary Manual Inspection of Auto-Promoted Rules

hort while until we've regained confidence that auto-promotion wont cause unexpected surprises. Thereafter make it fully automatic again, but make it easy to flip a boolean to switch back to manual inspection should we need it again later. Thoughts? Warren Togami war...@togami.com

Re: nightly sa-update updates are being published

On 3/23/2011 6:51 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote: On 23/03/2011 7:21 AM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote: I am afraid we already need another emergency rule update for 3.3. Please take a look at Bug #6220 and #6560. In the short-term we need to push another emergency rule update to disable all s

Re: svn commit: r1084721 - /spamassassin/trunk/lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/BodyRuleBaseExtractor.pm

On 3/23/2011 10:27 AM, mmarti...@apache.org wrote: Author: mmartinec Date: Wed Mar 23 20:27:59 2011 New Revision: 1084721 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1084721&view=rev Log: Bug 6558: let sa-update issue a warning when stumbling across a rule which could hit this bug Will this warn d

Re: nightly sa-update updates are being published

eed to push another emergency rule update to disable all six of those network rules. Then we need to figure out how it managed to ignore the "#testrules" mark within the sandbox file. Warren Togami war...@togami.com

Re: Emergency Rule Updates

On 3/21/2011 1:10 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: On Sun, 2011-03-20 at 22:53 -1000, Warren Togami Jr. wrote: If an emergency rule update does go out, please be sure Bug #6533 is part of that push. See, that's why I told you back those days what RESOLVED FIXED in bugzilla means. It means

Re: Emergency Rule Updates

On 3/20/2011 11:00 AM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6558 Karsten Bräckelmann changed: I guess this warrants a manually triggered rules update release, with the affected rules' tflags removed. Just minor surgery to the current tarball. How

Re: [Bug 6545] Include DNSWL spam reporting plugin

On 3/19/2011 1:08 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6545 --- Comment #8 from Warren Togami 2011-03-19 04:46:03 EDT --- (I am not committing specifically about this particular bug.) Then WHY did you dump this question as a comment to the

Re: mass-check + sa-update based reputation system

On 3/12/2011 2:58 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: On Sat, 2011-03-12 at 19:04 -0500, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: If we added the last untrusted relay IP to the lines in the mass-check logs, we could use the data to calculate the percentage of emails from each IP which is spam vs. ham, and then

Re: mass-check has been killing my internet connection - buggy cablemodem

On 3/12/2011 8:32 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: I would argue you are possibly triggering a DoS response from Comcast. What DNS servers are you using? When your internet dies, does your cable modem believe it still has a link? My thought exactly, this is most likely Comcast thinking you are in

Re: Jenkins build became unstable: SpamAssassin-trunk #6761

On 3/10/2011 3:20 AM, Apache Hudson Server wrote: See Jenkins? Was Hudson laid off and replaced by a non-union employee? =) Warren

Re: [Bug 6534] Evaluate UCEPROTECT

On 3/1/2011 10:00 AM, Jason Bertoch wrote: On 2011/03/01 2:38 PM, bugzilla-dae...@issues.apache.org wrote: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6534 Replying to list as I doubt this needs to be attached to the bug... http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20110226-r1074804-n/T_RCV

Re: svn commit: r1073076 - /spamassassin/trunk/rulesrc/sandbox/jhardin/20_uri_obfu_ws.cf

On 02/21/2011 10:06 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote: I agree it would be wise to allow this to auto-promote, but given the small size of our ham corpus and the fact that this pattern could rarely but legitimately appear in non-spam, perhaps we should manually cap its score to be on the safe side

Re: svn commit: r1073076 - /spamassassin/trunk/rulesrc/sandbox/jhardin/20_uri_obfu_ws.cf

I agree it would be wise to allow this to auto-promote, but given the small size of our ham corpus and the fact that this pattern could rarely but legitimately appear in non-spam, perhaps we should manually cap its score to be on the safe side. To throw out an arbitrary number I'd suggest 0.9

  1   2   3   4   5   >